Курсы английского
<<  Structural Funds for e-Infrastructure development: opportunities and challenges CPD for Secondary English staff Scots Language  >>
Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement
Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement
Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement
Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement
Картинки из презентации «Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement» к уроку английского языка на тему «Курсы английского»

Автор: Nadine Eriksson-Smith. Чтобы познакомиться с картинкой полного размера, нажмите на её эскиз. Чтобы можно было использовать все картинки для урока английского языка, скачайте бесплатно презентацию «Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement.ppt» со всеми картинками в zip-архиве размером 151 КБ.

Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement

содержание презентации «Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement.ppt»
Сл Текст Сл Текст
1 19centralised server. Where there is actual
2Online Intermediaries and Liability knowledge, it is irrelevant that the
for Copyright Infringement. Lilian Edwards product is capable of substantial
and Charlotte Waelde AHRC Centre for non-infringing uses Material contribution
Intellectual Property and Technology Law to user infringement through provision of
University of Edinburgh. site and facilities Centralised
3Introductory themes and issues. Who architecture gave it the right and ability
are online intermediaries? Traditional, to supervise and control users Tried to
newer and “P2P” Why have immunities for develop a filter to stop the movement of
intermediaries? Policy factors Changes infringing files…
since P2P explosion Copyright liability 20Aimster. Architecture decentralised –
issues Types of “general” immunity regimes Aimster had no copies on its servers -
Notice and take down (NTD) Immunity and information as to location of files on
“P2P” intermediaries Suing copyright computers of users. Aimster software
infringer not intermediary Private copying searched for files Communications
– when downloading is legal? Disclosure encrypted Used for substantial
and anonymity issues Alternatives to suing non-infringing uses – but no evidence
intermediaries or infringers Conclusions. (burden of proof on defendant) Merely
4On line intermediaries. “Traditional” being capable of substantial
= Internet Access Providers (IAPs) non-infringing uses not enough Consider
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) eg AOL ability of & costs to service provider
Hosts/”portals” eg BBC, NY Times, Yahoo! in preventing infringement by users Wilful
E.g. US Communications Decency Act 1996 s blindness (encryption) amounts to
230(c)– “Provider.. Of an interactive knowledge of infringement.
computer service” Intended to protect 21Grokster. Decentralised system: Each
ISPs, also applied to websites and user maintains an index only of files to
moderator of website, but NOT to EBay as be made available to other users Capable
distributor not publisher of content of substantial non-infringing uses No
(Grace v Ebay, 2004) Eg, Singapore control over users so no vicarious
Electronic Transaction Act 1998, India IT liability Could not know of infringement
Act 2000 both refer to “network service at time when it occurred Constructive
providers”. knowledge enough if lacking substantial
5Newer online intermediaries. On-line non-infringing uses, but actual knowledge
sellers/distributors of goods/services of specific infringement needed if there
On-line auction sites Aggregators eg RSS are substantial non-infringing uses.
readers Price comparison engines Search 22Grokster in the Supreme Court 29th
engines Universities & digitised March 2005. Does a defendant invoking the
archives Chat-rooms, fora, eGroups “Web Sony defence have to show that the
logs” or blogs Mobile phone communications technology is capable of, or actually
providers. does, support substantial non-infringing
6EC E-Commerce Directive 2000. Art 2(a) uses? Petitioners' Argument Under the Sony
- Information Society Service Providers rule, Grokster should be found liable:
(ISSPs) (see Arts 12-15) Provider of an unauthorised copying of works was
“information society service” defined as "the only significant use of
“any service normally provided for Grokster" Even if there were
remuneration, at a distance, by means of non-infringing uses – these were dwarfed
electronic equipment for the processing by infringing uses: look at the proportion
(including digital compression) and of legitimate to illegitimate uses.
storage of data, and at the individual Grokster should be excused only if the
request of a recipient of a service.” business model was not substantially
Recipient is user, natural/legal person. related to infringement (see also
Much wider than traditional ISP sector Government support of Petitioners - the
Non-commercial? Search engines? developer should show that it is "not
Universities? Services provided not WHOLLY involved in a business significantly
at a distance? eg, tele-employer P2P related to copyright infringement.")
intermediaries?? Have reasonable steps been taken to deter
7P2P intermediaries. 1. Centralised infringement? On relying on the actual
index P2P intermediaries eg first Napster inducement test "These companies
2. De-centralised model eg Grokster/KaZaA already operate in the shadows,"
– user nodes, super-nodes 3. BitTorrent – "The paper trail won't exist next
files downloaded in chunks, every time." Respondents' Argument Sony
downloader also uploader – hubs point to decision important to protect innovation
torrent files, tracker sites point to Grokster software is clearly within rubric
users. eXeem is eg P2P implementation. 4. of "substantial noninfringing
Freenet – encrypted files, also chunked, uses." (Cf Aimster which found no
anonymised users. 5. “Open source” substantial noninfringing uses of a P2P
intermediaries eg BitTorrent – cf file sharing program) Grokster not liable
proprietary intermediaries, eg, Napster, under ‘wilful ignorance’- never in
KaZaA. possession of information regarding how
8Copyright intermediary worries. Early its software is used. The technology was
cases – Scientology texts etc Caching P2P structured in such a way that the
liability for illicit downloading of developers had nothing to do with the
songs, video Hyperlinking liability (cf users once they obtained the software.
DMCA and ECD). 23Safe Harbor. Transitory communications
9Policy issues around “general” – transmitting/routing or providing
intermediary liability. Policy/law often connections for materials through system
driven by libel/porn cases not copyright or network System caching – intermediate
Early cases exclusively re ISPs, analogy and temporary storage of material
to h/c publishers ISPs seen as Information location tools –
identifiable targets with “deep pockets”, referring/linking to an online location
while original content providers often containing infringing material Proviso –
anonymous, unlocatable, no resources, where there is knowledge prevent the use
& (re copyright) bad PR to sue your of the service by repeat infringers NTD
own customers ISPs transmit/host/publish regime not satisfactory as a regime of
huge amounts content, some dynamic, most protection for P2P intermediaries Napster
out of contractual control In practice, – attempts resulted in closure Aimster –
unable to monitor/check all this material, said it did not know what users were doing
plus undesirable in terms of privacy Thus, – but included tutorials Grokster – not
in toto, seen as subject to unmanageable considered in detail – could not know of
burden if made liable as ordinary uses at time at which they took place -
publishers are for content provided by control had been ceded to users.
others. 24Netherlands. Buma/Stemra v KaZaA KaZaA
10Policy outcomes to c 2000. But - not liable for copyright infringement in
public interest in a flourishing ISP relation to works swapped between its
sector for public/commercial reasons users ‘The provider of [P2P] file sharing
States furthermore saw ISPs as natural software as the one in issue cannot itself
gatekeepers to Internet – able to help be held liable for infringement of
control porn, spam, etc Hence, immunities copyright. The provider may in certain
needed so that ISP could exert some though circumstances be liable for a wrongful
not total control over 3rd party content act’ ‘a service provider …may… be
without becoming liable for it – statutory [required] to take adequate measures when
reversal of Prodigy case, which had the service provider is notified of the
encouraged “head in sand” approach. US CDA fact that one of the users of its
1996 s 230 (c) eg gave ISPs total immunity computers system is committing copyright
in respect of content provided by another infringements..’ Requiring what?
party Later instruments – DMCA, ECD etc – Termination of a users account? Takedown?
gave less total immunity (see on). But where control is ceded to the user and
11But later policy factors emerge.. there is no further involvement from the
ISPs/intermediaries took advantage of provider?
immunities granted but did NOT on whole 25Canada. Authorisation of infringement
(tho cf BT Internet) take on voluntary (sanction, approve or countenance) Could
monitoring/filtering role. Tendency to see royalties be collected from ISPs in Canada
self as neutral businesses, not censors or for downloading by users? Did the ISPs
state agents. On-line industry authorise the infringement? ‘a person does
mainstreamed – less worry that liability not authorise infringement by authorising
would put it out of business, cause the mere use of equipment that could be
off-shoring Interests of “victims” given used to infringe copyright. Courts should
short shrift compared to immunity for presume that a person who authorises an
intermediaries – esp IP rightsholders. activity does so only so far as it is in
Exponential growth in P2P music piracy accordance with the law…’ ‘an ISP is
Tacit knowledge that broadband as consumer entitled to presume that its facilities
business model based heavily on illegal will be used in accordance with the law’.
downloading MIPI, Australia, April 05 Could be rebutted by knowledge – e.g.
“There can be no doubt that the ISP notice of infringing posting and ‘failure
industry's dirty little secret is how much to take it down’. But where control is
revenue they derive from the traffic in ceded to the user and there is no further
unauthorised sound recordings.”. involvement from the provider?
12Legal regimes for intermediary 26Australia – KaZaA litigation.
liability - 1. “Total liability” China etc Moorhouse test – sanction approve
– state censorship arm Original Australian countenance or permit ‘inactivity or
Broadcasting Amendment Services (On Line indifference exhibited by acts of
Services) Act 1999, re porn only – amended commission or omission’ might be enough
“No Liability” or “Total immunity” US CDA Must know – or have reason to suspect that
1996 c 230 (c) re publication libellous, infringing activity would take place ‘a
obscene, negligently misstating content person who has under his control the means
not copyright: “No provider or user of an by which an infringement of copyright may
interactive computer service shall be be committed…and who makes it available to
treated as the publisher or speaker of any other persons, knowing, or having reason
information provided by another content to suspect, that it is likely to be used
provider“ Problems – no incentive for for the purpose of committing an
ISP/host to pay any attention to rights of infringement, and omitting to take
victims, even on explicit notice – see reasonable steps to limit its use to
Zeran v AOL , 1997. legitimate purposes, would authorise any
13Legal regimes for intermediary infringement that resulted from its use’
liability 2 – limited liability. What might this require P2P intermediaries
Compromise. Encourages self regulation by to do? Would warnings be enough – as with
intermediary. US DMCA (copyright only) and photocopier notices? But where control is
EC ECD (“horizontal”) both espouse ceded to the user and there is no further
functionality immunities for online involvement from the provider?
intermediaries “Mere conduit” immunity 27Notice and architecture. Architectural
“Caching” immunity “Hosting” immunity. differences – crucial Napster – knowledge
Most controversial. Main issue is notice and technically capable of removal KaZaA
and take down (NTD) “Linking/informational and Grokster – no knowledge at time of
or locational tools” immunity – found in infringing activities and no way of
DMCA but not in ECD. Is linking liability stopping those infringements.
something that would logically extend to 28Suing downloaders and uploaders.
P2P intermediaries as well? Do P2P Downloaders Downloading/making private
intermediaries have benefit of these copies is not unlawful in all
regimes at all? Apparently not in US: see jurisdictions: Canada – a levy system ‘all
Napster, Aimster later. EU? Lack of private copying is now exempt subject to a
linking liability provision in ECD makes corresponding right of remuneration’
it unlikely. France – downloading films and music from
14Notice and take down. Essence of the internet, copying onto CDs and sharing
limited liability regimes is that ‘with a few friends’ – not commercial use.
intermediary is immune from liability as How many friends? Downloaders and
host/publisher unless receives uploaders BitTorrent – downloading and
constructive or actual notice of uploading – who to sue? Uploaders Many
illegality. Both ECD and DMCA then demand individuals been sued – many of whom have
“expedient” take-down (what is settled.
“expedient?”) Key issue: how far does NTD 29Hiding and Identifying the infringers.
operate as privatised censorship and Hiding the infringers Freenet – users
invade public domain? Does intermediary remain anonymous through its architecture
have any incentive to check validity of and makes process of identification hard
claim? Oxford “mystery shopper” found no Identifying the infringers Should
incentive to investigate. Dutch research disclosure be mandated by courts? Pre
found 70% take down without enquiry by litigation? Standard of evidence? Where is
Dutch ISPs of public domain text. DMCA the balance between privacy and
does help by demanding rightsholder disclosure? How much evidence of
authorisation of take down, and good faith infringement should be required to justify
pledge - not found in ECD DMCA also disclosure? UK – Totalise v Motley Fool
provides safe harbor to intermediary (libel) – court ordered disclosure
against breach of contract claims by site notwithstanding data protection. BPI
taken down – not in ECD. action – 28 individuals disclosed US –
15Put-back and public scrutiny. If DMCA s 512(h) – empowers ISP to disclose
evidence true, are there ways to safeguard ‘notwithstanding any other rule of law’;
NTD against unfairly repressing public Cf. Dendrite v John Doe No. 3. – (libel)
domain/fair use/fair dealing? Put-back in plaintiff must show winning case before
DMCA in practice rarely used – C&Ds disclosure would be mandated; RIAA v
tend to be accepted/settled, due to Verizon – DMCA procedure does not apply
superior firepower. Could a body like where ISP acts a conduit Canada - BMG v
Internet Watch Foundation usefully John Doe – ‘the public interests in favour
adjudicate copyright take-down requests? of disclosure must outweigh the legitimate
Unlikely – see EC Rightswatch research. privacy concerns’.
Oxford research suggests criteria for self 30Unresolved issues. Actual or
regulatory decisions, such as constructive knowledge? When is knowledge
transparency, public accountability, relevant? How much positive action should
audit, independence, independent appeals be taken? What of wilful blindness? What
mechanism. Also suggest accreditation by is meant by authorisation? Relevance of
sector regulator as fair system. actual or potentially non-infringing uses?
16P2P intermediaries. 1. Centralised What happens where users are downloaders
index P2P intermediaries eg first Napster and uploaders? Decentralised anonymised
2. De-centralised model eg Grokster/KaZaA systems make identification problematic
– user nodes, super-nodes 3. BitTorrent – Who is liable for open source systems? NTD
files downloaded in chunks, every regimes not helpful or relevant.
downloader also uploader – hubs point to 31Alternative solutions? Levies Giving
torrent files, tracker sites point to up on copyright; majority pay for
users. eXeem is eg P2P implementation. 4. minority; double pay where DRM; not
Freenet – encrypted files, also chunked, intended to compensate for unlawful use;
anonymised users. 5. “Open source” loss of control; administrative problems;
intermediaries eg BitTorrent – cf ignores market; Better than more
proprietary intermediaries, eg, Napster, regulation where enforcement is
KaZaA. impossible; administration could be
17Copyright liability and P2P managed; deploy technology to collect
intermediaries. Can P2P intermediaries be levies? Digital Rights Management Complex
held to be liable for infringement of contractual matrices; fair use/dealing;
copyright by their users? Varying capable of circumvention Active inducement
standards: US – contributory and vicarious theory The inducement is likely to be
liability Canada and Australia – hidden – Grokster "These companies
authorisation of infringement Netherlands already operate in the shadows,"
– general tort law? "The paper trail won't exist next
18Contributory and vicarious liability – time." Join the club Managed
the US. Direct infringement by primary downloading sites Shaping the technology?
user Contributory: knowledge of the 32Balancing the interests.
infringement and material contribution Intermediaries; content providers; rights
Vicarious: right and ability to supervise holders; technology developers; public
and financial benefit But – substantial interest Time for a change in emphasis?
non-infringing uses Sony Betamax case From limited liability NTD to…?
Staple article of commerce doctrine Sale 33For more information:
of copying equipment does not constitute http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrb Email:
contributory infringement if it is used or itandip@ed.ac.uk AHRC Research Centre for
capable of substantial non infringing Studies in Intellectual Property and
uses. Technology Law School of Law University of
19Napster. Napster had actual knowledge Edinburgh Old College Edinburgh EH8 9YL.
of infringing uses through provision of
Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement.ppt
cсылка на страницу

Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement

другие презентации на тему «Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement»

«English for you» - Все слова и выражения озвучены носителями языка. Артикль Множественное число Предлоги. Твои школьные учебники. Ты научишься правильно строить предложение. Викторины Задания Игры Игровые упражнения Ты можешь выбрать уровень сложности. Грамматика станет твоим другом. Может ли компьютер заменить учителя?

«Деловое общение» - Элементы исследовательской работы. Деловой разговор по телефону. Групповая работа. Заполнение анкеты. Деловая игра. Развитие навыка этикетного диалога. Деловой английский для подростков. Пособие по культуроведению. Резюме. Самостоятельная работа. Программа учебного курса «Гид-переводчик». Русско-английский разговорник-справочник делового общения.

«Курсы английского Success English» - Деловой английский язык. Взаимодействие с англоязычной культурой. Взаимодействие с носителями языка. Бронзовый сертификат. Курсы английского языка «Success English». Модуль третий. Быстрое изучение английского языка. Модуль второй. Золотой сертификат. Серебряный сертификат. Модуль первый. Полученные знания, подтверждаются фирменными Сертификатами.

«Курсы разговорного английского » - Темы курса. Почему «Оксфорд Класс»? Оксфорд Класс. Клиенты. Дополнительные возможности. «Оксфорд Класс» создан в 1994г. в Киеве в партнерстве с языковой школой “Oxford Overseas Tutorials”. Наши преподаватели. Система контроля качества. Формы и режим проведения занятий. О программе. English для успешных людей.

«Курс обучения в Language Link» - Обучение за рубежом. Международный языковой центр Language Link. Основные программы обучения. Методика обучения. Услуги. Отзывы клиентов. Деловой английский. Международные экзамены. Общий английский. Организационные преимущества. Бизнес-английский для специалистов. Преимущества документооборота. Преимущества обучения в Language Link.

«English for you» - Артикль Множественное число Предлоги. Грамматика станет твоим другом. Слова и выражения по темам. EuroTalk. Что ты научишься делать и узнаешь. «Английский для тебя» (курс английского языка с применением ИКТ). Твои школьные учебники. При выполнении заданий программа оценивает твой результат и предоставляет отчёт.

Курсы английского

25 презентаций о курсах английского

Английский язык

29 тем
900igr.net > Презентации по английскому языку > Курсы английского > Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement